Exam 2 cases - Olmstead v United states Question: Did the...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Olmstead v United states Question: Did the use of evidence of private telephone conversations between the defendants and others, intercepted by means of wire tapping, amount to a violation of the fourth and fifth amendments? Holding: affirmed, the use of evidence of private telephone conversations between the defendants and others, intercepted by means of wire tapping, does not amount to a violation of the fourth and fifth amendments. Rationale: 5 th amendment: not applicable unless there is a 4 th amendment violation. The defendants were not compelled, because they had no knowledge of the interception. 4 th amendment: history – prevent the use of governmental force to search a man’s house, his person, his papers, and his effects; and to prevent their seizure against his will. Court’s assertions: 4 th does not forbid what was done here. There was no searching or seizure, merely the evidence was obtained through hearing and did not involve entry into the houses or offices of the defendants. Congress may pass a law to protect the telephone messages, making them inadmissible, but it is not the court’s place to extend the meaning of the forth amendment to the present case. Lewis v United states Defendant’s argument: 4 th amendment violation by way of intrusion of the privacy of the home without a warrant. - officer was invited into the home of the defendant as an undercover agent, seeking to buy narcotics. - the court reasoned that if the deceptions of the agent were deemed unconstitutional, then the use of any undercover agent would always be deemed unconstitutional, thereby hampering the government in many other investigations, specifically in the instance of combating organized crime and narcotics trafficking. Hoffa v United States Facts: During the course of the Test Fleet trial, the defendant occupied a three-room suite. His companions during the trial were King and Partin; fellow teamster associates. During the period of their stay, Partin made frequent reports to a federal agent concerning his conversations with the defendant and king, disclosing information on the defendant’s endeavors to bribe the jury. The events initiated when Partin telephoned the defendant to discuss union matters and Partin’s difficulties with the authorities. Hoffa then agreed to meet with Partin. The government insists that Partin went to Nashville on his own initiative to discuss business and his problems with the defendant. Partin cooperated closely with federal authorities and received compensation for his out of pocket expenses, and also his cooperation with them had nothing to do with the lack of charges being filed against Partin. The trial court supported this argument and these facts were supported by the court of appeals as being substantial evidence. The defendant is being charged for the
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
bribery of the jury during the course of the Test Fleet trial. The defendants were convicted and the court of appeals affirmed. Question:
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Page1 / 29

Exam 2 cases - Olmstead v United states Question: Did the...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online